Basil Lourié National Research University Higher School of Economics Syrian and Armenian Christianity in Northern Macedonia from the Middle of the Eighth to the Middle of the Ninth Century 1. Introduction The present study will be focused on a phenomenon known relatively long ago but still not fully appreciated —Syrian and Armenian compact communities, not just diaspora appeared in the middle of the eighth century in the northern Macedonia. Now I will not exhaust this topic either. I hope, nevertheless, to provide a “critical mass” of data demonstrating that the relevance of the phenomenon we are dealing with was so far underestimated. The nature of the earliest Bulgarian Christianity is not understandable without its background in local communities of Syrian and Armenian Christians. The archaeologists and historians of architecture were the first ones to notice the relevance of these communities for the local architecture and, therefore, pointed to some literary witnesses related to their appearance in the lands of the modern Republic of Macedonia. Nevertheless, according to the a priori supposition held by the consensus of historians, any somewhat important Church building in the territory devastated by the Avars ca 580 and belonged to the Bulgarian kingdom in the time of its conversion in the 860s could not be dated to the period in between these dates. Oddly enough, I have never met an archaeological study where a possibility of dating a church construction in Macedonia to the eighth or the first part of the ninth century would have been taken seriously. Neither have I met an explicit statement substantiating impossibility of such dating for the territories of the modern state of Macedonia, which were a part of a Christian Empire before the 830s. Such a possibility is never disproved but simply never discussed. The simple question where are the churches of the resettled there Syrians and Armenians is so far never formulated. My present purpose is, after having summarised the findings and conclusions proposed so far by archaeologists and architecture historians, to review the relevant historical witnesses in an exhaustive manner. 2. The Palaces in Pliska and Their Architects In 1968, Anatoly Leopol’dovich Yakobson (1906–1984) published a seminal paper on the influence of the Syrian and Armenian architectural traditions on the earliest architecture in the Bulgarian Kingdom1. Then, he was dealing mostly with the early ninth-century palaces in Pliska: Yakobson noticed that these palaces had the closest parallels in palaces constructed in Armenia during the seventh century; these palaces were then recently excavated and not widely known. Realising that his data are severely limited, Yakobson formulated his conclusion as a new hypothesis but the most plausible among the available ones. His ideas were adopted by Stancho 1 (Якобсон 1968). This topic has been only briefly mentioned in his posthumous monograph (Якобсон 1987: 103). Yakobson then confirmed his adherence to his earlier hypothesis but still without having new data to substantiate it. Vaklinov (1921–1978) in his influential book2 and by Rasho Rashev in his definitive monograph on the excavations in Pliska3, but still without any additional substantiation. The main conclusion by Yakobson is worth to be quoted in extenso: Therefore, a direct communication of the Bulgarians with Armenians and Syrians (incidentally, the born masons) would have occurred (and, undoubtedly, did happen) precisely during the period of intensive construction works in the Bulgarian capital Pliska. Direct participation in this construction of Armenian and Syrian architects is more than probable4. According to Yakobson, these Armenians and Syrians who were in contact with the Bulgarian khan’s court were the people resettled under Constantine Copronymus (741–775)5. He did not discuss the manner in which such contacts would have been effectuated—through the inter-state border between the Byzantine Empire and the Bulgarian Kingdom. These Armenians and Syrians would have hardly been subjects of the khan already in the epoch of Khan Krum (803–814); their territories were conquered by Bulgarians under Khan Presian in the late 830s6, that is, certainly later than the palaces in Pliska were built. Yakobson died in 1984, in the same year when Blaga Aleksova (1922–2007) discovered the two churches in Krupište, Macedonia, near the river Bregalnica and at the site that she identified with that of the city of Raven known from the Legend of Thessalonica only7. This finding was calling for revisiting Yakobson’s hypothesis but neither Aleksova nor few other archaeologists who studied these churches after her recalled Yakobson’s 1968 paper. The new findings in Macedonia substantiate Yakobson’s claim very much. Indeed, these “born masons” who constructed palaces for a foreign pagan ruler would have certainly constructed churches for themselves. All Macedonian churches datable archaeologically to the period from the eighth to the tenth century must be investigated as possibly constructed by these Syrians and Armenians in the late eighth or in the first half of the ninth century. For our present study, however, only two localities with three such churches are especially interesting: Strumica with one church and the site of Krupište with two churches. Apparently without knowing Yakobson’s hypothesis, Blaga Aleksova recognised a Syrian pattern in the plan of one church in Krupište and even provided a close parallel with a church in Maipherkat. The bigger church from two churches in Krupište (Aleksova called it “cathedral church”) has a very similar plan to that of the early seventh-century Theotokos church in Maipherkat8. Aleksova, who discovered this church in 1984, and some archaeologists after her9 considered this church as a late 2 (Ваклинов 1977: 108–109). 3 (Рашев 2008: 87); however, Rashev’s reference to predecessors of Yakobson (Fehér, Miyatev, Vasilev) ascribing to some of them (without saying exactly to whom) an idea of Syrian origin of such architecture is not correct. 4 (Якобсон 1968: 206): “Таким образом, непосредственное общение болгар с армянами и сирийцами (кстати сказать, прирожденными каменщиками) могло происходить (да, несомненно, и происходило) как раз в период интенсивного строительства в болгарской столице Плиске. Непосредственное участие в этом строительстве армянских и сирийских зодчих более чем вероятно”. This formulation reveals his subjective confidence in what he called his “hypothesis”. 5 (Якобсон 1968: 205–206): 6 For a detailed discussion of the historical data and historiography, see (Коледаров 1979: 41–42). 7 On the Legend of Thessalonica, see Lourié forthcoming. 8 As well as to the famous but much later (eleventh- or twelfth-century) basilica in Ćurlina [read Churlina] near Niš in Serbia: (Алексова 1989: 93, 137; 277, ill. 103; 283, ill. 118 and 119); for the Maipherkat church, see (Grabar 1946: 327 and 617, fig. 92). Aleksova quotes Grabar without addressing directly his source (Bell 1913: 88–92, Pl. XV–XIX). 9 (Микулчиќ 1996: 347–348). ninth- or early tenth-century Bulgarian/Slavic construction. They were facing the choice between a pre-Avaric (pre-580) Byzantine construction and a Bulgarian one. Given that a pre-Avaric date was excluded on archaeological grounds, the Bulgarian alternative was chosen. In fact, there is a need to take into account the third possibility—that there were some constructions remained from the late eighth- and ninth-century activity of the Armenian and Syrian immigrants. The “cathedral” church in Krupište could be interpreted as a building made not only after the common pattern with that of the church in Maipherkat but also by the descendants of the Byzantine Armenia themselves (Maipherkat/Martyropolis was the second centre of the former Byzantine province Great Armenia after its capital Theodosioupolis/Karin, modern Erzurum). According to the purely archaeological considerations, this church is now dated to the eighth or ninth century10, which is in the perfect accord with this possibility. Indeed, a possibility that some post-Byzantine Christian buildings in Macedonia are constructed by these Armenians and Syrians during the century preceding the conversion of Bulgaria in the 860s, is not limited to a unique church, and it should be checked properly by specialists. Let us add that it is still hard to explain why these churches are constructed after non-Byzantine Syrian patterns if they would have been constructed after the conversion of Bulgaria into the Byzantine Christianity. These observations corroborates Yakobson’s hypothesis on Syrians and Armenians as the constructors of the palaces in Pliska. These palaces, if they were constructed by the masters who belonged to Syrians and Armenians resettled in Macedonia, must have corresponded to some monuments in Macedonia. Not palaces, of course—because there was no need in palaces there,—but what was the most necessary for masters’ own use, that is, churches. Thus, one can figure out how much Yakobson would have enjoyed Aleksova’s publications on Krupište were he alive then. 3. The Literary Sources The available literary sources are mostly related to the events of 752/754 (there are some problems with precise dating)—the resettlement of Christian Armenian and Syrian population from two regions of the Arab Caliphate to the depopulated region of the Byzantine Empire near the Bulgarian border. Nevertheless, a part of the sources refers to the early ninth-century situation of the resettled people. 3.1. Theodosioupolis Theodosioupolis, the former capital of the Roman Armenia, was the most important locality dealt with in our sources. According to the often-quoted passage of Theophanes the Confessor under AM 6247 = AD 754/75511, the following took place: ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς Κωνσταντῖνος Σύρους τε καὶ The emperor Constantine transferred to Thrace the Syrians and Ἀρμενίους, οὓς ἤγαγεν ἀπὸ Θεοδοσιουπόλεως καὶ Armenians whom he had brought from Theodosioupolis and 10 (Нацев 2013: 281). 11 The exact date of the event is somewhat problematic, but, at least, it took place within the interval between 752 and 754; cf.